The teacher manages who is selected as next-speaker

the next activity and its relation to the written task. Despite this, Angela does not know which activity to produce and initiates a repair sequence (line 3) as a necessary requirement before continuing. She gazes towards the classmates close to her, and after several requests for information, the teacher, who has been looking down into her own book with the list of questions since she selected Angela as next-speaker, reads aloud the question Angela is supposed to answer.

1 Teacher: #+ α βJa:

Teacher: Yes#gaze into book Patricia: +-->gaze into book Cathy: α gaze into book Poh: βgaze towards teacher 2 (1.0) α (1.0) β ((1.9))

Cathy: α--> gaze towards teacher

Poh: βgaze towards class

3 Teacher: #Ehrm#::

Ehrm::

Teacher: #gaze towards Patricia #gaze towards Cathy

4 β(1.0) # (1.0) (1.0) # (1.0) (1.0) (0.2) ((5.2)) Teacher: #gaze towards Patricia #gaze into book

Poh: βgaze towards teacher

5 Teacher: Patricia? αβ (0.8) Fik du βfat i hvorfor Lisbeth kom α for #sEnt Patricia (0.8) Did you get why Lisbeth was late

Teacher: #gaze toards board

Cathy: α gaze into book α gaze towards Patricia Poh: βgaze towards Patricia βgaze towards book

6 (1.0)

7 Patricia: Eh#rm: (0.2) fordi hu:βn eh: (0.5) .tsk ha::r α cykel punk+tere Ehrm (0.2) because she eh (0.5) .tsk has bike puncture Teacher: #writes on board

Patricia: +gaze towards teacher

Cathy: α gaze into book

Poh: β-->>gaze towards Patricia

8 (0.5)

9 Teacher: Ja α er

Cathy: Yeah α gaze towards teacher/ board

Example 5.10 [O620U1 – 47:25]

Even though several students, represented in the transcript by Cathy and Poh, are gazing toward the teacher as she projects a transition to the next activity (lines 1-3), she selects another student, Patricia, to answer the question. The teacher engages in mutual gaze with Cathy at the end of line 3, but withdraws the gaze and turns towards Patricia again before selecting her as next-speaker. Patricia does not display that she is willing to answer the question. She does not turn the gaze towards the teacher after the teacher's summons. She does not turn towards her until the end of the answer, and thus orients to the teacher as

the main recipient of her talk. At the same time, she projects an evaluation from the teacher in the next turn by turning the gaze towards the teacher towards the possible completion of the second pair-part. In this way, even though the teacher orients to Cathy as being willing to be selected, she ignores this display and manages the speaker selection. Even though she acknowledges the interactional context, she does not select a student according to their displayed willingness, but manages how the order of turns is organized.

Previously, I noted that by displaying willingness to be selected as next-speaker, a student is also displaying that (s)he is able to answer the projected relevant first pair-part, i.e. the next item on the list. By selecting a student who does not display willingness to be selected, the teacher “overrules” the social norm of displaying whether they are available for engaging into focused interaction with the teacher. Further, by selecting a student who does not display willingness to be selected as next-speaker, the teacher selects a student who does not display whether (s)he knows the answer, and this can have sequential consequences. The activity from which the next example is taken, includes a written text with empty spaces, where the students are supposed to fill in numbers they hear when the text is read aloud. Here they are going through the text, and the selected student is supposed to read one sentence of the text aloud.

1 #+αβγ(2.4)

Teacher: #gaze around the class Mia: +-->>gaze into book

Cathy: αgaze towards teacher and flick the pen in front of her Angela: β-->gaze towards teacher

Ayaan: γ-->gaze towards teacher

2 Teacher: Ja

Yes

3 (1.4)

4 Teacher: #Den næste:α=ehr#m: Miβa The next one ehrm Mia Teacher: #gaze to book #gaze to Mia Cathy: α gaze into book

Angela: βgaze towards Mia

5 #γ(1.4)

Teacher: #-->gaze into book Ayaan: γ -->>gaze into book 6 Mia: βEh: fra desuden?

Eh from moreover Angela: β-->>gaze into book

7 (0.3)

8 Teacher: Ja (.) ta[k Yes (.) please

9 Mia: [Desuden blev=ehrm femogfyrre? #(0.7) ehrm:#:: (1.3) bagsædepassagerer [Moreover forty five backseat passengers caught

Teacher: #turns to board #writen on board

10 Mia: snuppet uden sele without a safety belt

Example 5.11 [O620U1 – 15:38]

In example 5.11, like in example 5.10, the teacher does not select one of the students who is displaying willingness to be selected as next-speaker, but a student who is looking into her own book on the table in front of her. She does not specify which task Mia is supposed to answer, but frames the first pair-part in relation to the previous activity by the next one (line 4). In order for Mia to be able to answer the first pair-part, this requires that she “remembers” which was the last task item and that she thereby orients to the progression of the activity. When Mia is selected as next-speaker, she does not provide the second pair-part. Instead, she initiates an insertion sequence (Schegloff 1968; 2007:

chap. 6) that requests for confirmation of which activity to produce (reading aloud), by

proposing a specific position of where to start reading aloud, and marks it as a hesitant proposal (line 6). After the teacher's confirmation that this is indeed the activity she is supposed to produce and the right place to do it (line 8), Mia starts reading aloud from the text. In this way, Mia did not display that she was a “knowing and willing answerer” and since the teacher did not specify the task, she was not in a position to provide a second pair-part before dealing with the necessary requirements, i.e. which task to perform.

Thus, selecting a student who does not display willingness as next-speaker can have sequential consequences, and this displays the social norm of engagement, by gazing towards the teacher in these sequential environments.

5.6.1 Next-speaker selection through address term

Next-speaker selection in ordinary conversation can be done through various resources.

Lerner (2003) describes explicit forms of address (gaze and address terms such as names, pronouns etc.) and context-sensitive tacit forms by which he refers to

how the organization of actions as sequences of actions can be bound up with the selection of a next speaker (Lerner 2003: 190).

In the present data collection (of cases where activities are prepared and available to the students, but the turn-allocation is managed locally), the only resource teachers rely on to nominate a student as next-speaker is an address term by using the selected student's name.⁵ In fact, this seems to be an aspect of how these activities are accomplished:

5 Compare Stivers and Robinson's observation that “most questions in multi-party interaction select a next speaker to provide the answer” (Stivers and Robinson 2006:

369), although they do not account for HOW this is accomplished.

1 Teacher: +#Ja

Teacher: Yes #gaze into book Monika: +gaze into book 2 α (3.0) # (0.9) ((3.9))

Teacher: #gaze towards Mia and around the class Mia: α gaze towards teacher

3 Teacher: Øh::::::: +videre: #ehrm:::::: #(4.8) ^oja nu ka #je ikk Ehrm:: go on ehrm (4.8) yeah now I can´t

Teacher: #gaze to table #goes to other table #gaze on attendance list Monika: +-->gaze towards teacher

4 Teacher: husk hva i hedder alle sammen^o .Hhh Mo#nik+a remember all your names .Hhh Monika

Teacher: #gaze towards Monika

Monika: +gaze towards book

Example 5.12 [O620U1 – 15:55]

In example 5.12, the teacher initiates the progression to the next task item, and delays the speaker-selection by a hesitation marker and a gap (line 3). However, rather that selecting a student to produce the second pair-part, she explicitly orients to the NAMING of the to-be-selected student as a relevant action, and relies on the attendance list in order to select a next-speaker. For one thing, using the students' names as a resource for turn-allocation allows the teacher to select a student who is not displaying participation in the ongoing activity. Visual resources, such as gaze and pointing, as well as non-reference specific address terms, such as you, to select a next-speaker require that the selected student is (physically) able to recognize that (s)he has been selected. On the other hand, it requires that the teacher “knows” and/or “remembers” the students' names. Using the student's name as a resource of speaker-selection seems to be a general feature for selecting a next-speaker in these activities. And example 5.12 exemplifies how the teacher orients to this aspect. However, a more systematic study of whether this is specifically related to the ongoing activity must be left for future research.